Search (177 results, page 1 of 9)

0.067262225 = product of:
  0.13452445 = sum of:
    0.13452445 = sum of:
      0.103880174 = weight(_text_:n in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.103880174 = score(doc=992,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.53260374 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
      0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030644279 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich (N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL (N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% (N = 166) and 7.8% (N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% (N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African-centric research indexing database, is concerning.

Date

22. 6.2023 14:09:06

0.06168072 = product of:
  0.12336144 = sum of:
    0.12336144 = sum of:
      0.0743306 = weight(_text_:n in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0743306 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
      0.049030844 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049030844 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30.12.2007 11:22:39

0.046260543 = product of:
  0.09252109 = sum of:
    0.09252109 = sum of:
      0.05574795 = weight(_text_:n in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05574795 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.036773134 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036773134 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.044897087 = product of:
  0.089794174 = sum of:
    0.089794174 = sum of:
      0.046456624 = weight(_text_:n in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046456624 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.043337554 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043337554 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.

0.03855045 = product of:
  0.0771009 = sum of:
    0.0771009 = sum of:
      0.046456624 = weight(_text_:n in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046456624 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 2743, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2743)
      0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030644279 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2743, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2743)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 17:52:50

0.03635806 = product of:
  0.07271612 = sum of:
    0.07271612 = product of:
      0.14543223 = sum of:
        0.14543223 = weight(_text_:n in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14543223 = score(doc=526,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.74564517 = fieldWeight in 526, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=526)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We present a model that describes which fraction of the literature on a certain topic we will find when we use n (n = 1, 2, .) databases. It is a generalization of the theory of discovering usability problems. We prove that, in all practical cases, this fraction is a concave function of n, the number of used databases, thereby explaining some graphs that exist in the literature. We also study limiting features of this fraction for n very high and we characterize the case that we find all literature on a certain topic for n high enough.

0.03084036 = product of:
  0.06168072 = sum of:
    0.06168072 = sum of:
      0.0371653 = weight(_text_:n in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0371653 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.19055009 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
      0.024515422 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024515422 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.03072817 = product of:
  0.06145634 = sum of:
    0.06145634 = product of:
      0.12291268 = sum of:
        0.12291268 = weight(_text_:n in 1722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12291268 = score(doc=1722,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.63018525 = fieldWeight in 1722, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1722)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Hirsch's (2005) h index of scholarly output has generated substantial interest and wide acceptance because of its apparent ability to quantify scholarly impact simply and accurately. We show that the excitement surrounding h is premature for three reasons: h stagnates with increasing scientific age; it is highly dependent on publication quantity; and it is highly dependent on field-specific citation rates. Thus, it is not useful for comparing scholars across disciplines. We propose the scholarly index of quality and productivity (IQp) as an alternative to h. The new index takes into account a scholar's total impact and also corrects for field-specific citation rates, scholarly productivity, and scientific age. The IQp accurately predicts group membership on a common metric, as tested on a sample of 80 scholars from three populations: (a) Nobel winners in physics (n = 10), chemistry (n = 10), medicine (n = 10), and economics (n = 10), and towering psychologists (n = 10); and scholars who have made more modest contributions to science including randomly selected (b) fellows (n = 15) and (c) members (n = 15) of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The IQp also correlates better with expert ratings of greatness than does the h index.

0.028448759 = product of:
  0.056897517 = sum of:
    0.056897517 = product of:
      0.113795035 = sum of:
        0.113795035 = weight(_text_:n in 2009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.113795035 = score(doc=2009,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.58343816 = fieldWeight in 2009, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2009)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The article studies the influence of the query formulation of a topic on its h-index. In order to generate pure random sets of documents, we used N-grams (N variable) to measure this influence: strings of zeros, truncated at the end. The used databases are WoS and Scopus. The formula h=T**1/alpha, proved in Egghe and Rousseau (2006) where T is the number of retrieved documents and is Lotka's exponent, is confirmed being a concavely increasing function of T. We also give a formula for the relation between h and N the length of the N-gram: h=D10**(-N/alpha) where D is a constant, a convexly decreasing function, which is found in our experiments. Nonlinear regression on h=T**1/alpha gives an estimation of , which can then be used to estimate the h-index of the entire database (Web of Science [WoS] and Scopus): h=S**1/alpha, , where S is the total number of documents in the database.

0.027873974 = product of:
  0.05574795 = sum of:
    0.05574795 = product of:
      0.1114959 = sum of:
        0.1114959 = weight(_text_:n in 1006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1114959 = score(doc=1006,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.57165027 = fieldWeight in 1006, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Fractional frequency distributions of, for example, authors with a certain (fractional) number of papers are very irregular and, therefore, not easy to model or to explain. This article gives a first attempt to this by assuming two simple Lotka laws (with exponent 2): one for the number of authors with n papers (total count here) and one for the number of papers with n authors, n E N. Based an an earlier made convolution model of Egghe, interpreted and reworked now for discrete scores, we are able to produce theoretical fractional frequency distributions with only one parameter, which are in very close agreement with the practical ones as found in a large dataset produced earlier by Rao. The article also shows that (irregular) fractional frequency distributions are a consequence of Lotka's law, and are not examples of breakdowns of this famous historical law.

0.027873974 = product of:
  0.05574795 = sum of:
    0.05574795 = product of:
      0.1114959 = sum of:
        0.1114959 = weight(_text_:n in 1279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1114959 = score(doc=1279,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.57165027 = fieldWeight in 1279, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.027873974 = product of:
  0.05574795 = sum of:
    0.05574795 = product of:
      0.1114959 = sum of:
        0.1114959 = weight(_text_:n in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1114959 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.57165027 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.024515422 = product of:
  0.049030844 = sum of:
    0.049030844 = product of:
      0.09806169 = sum of:
        0.09806169 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09806169 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419

0.024515422 = product of:
  0.049030844 = sum of:
    0.049030844 = product of:
      0.09806169 = sum of:
        0.09806169 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09806169 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.024515422 = product of:
  0.049030844 = sum of:
    0.049030844 = product of:
      0.09806169 = sum of:
        0.09806169 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09806169 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22

0.02413957 = product of:
  0.04827914 = sum of:
    0.04827914 = product of:
      0.09655828 = sum of:
        0.09655828 = weight(_text_:n in 4547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09655828 = score(doc=4547,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.49506366 = fieldWeight in 4547, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4547)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents an investigation of the role of social relations in the writing of scientific articles through the study of in-text citations. Does the fact that the author of an article knows the author whose work he or she cites have an impact on the context of the citation? Because citations are commonly used as criteria for research evaluation, it is important to question their social background to better understand how it impacts textual features. We studied a collection of science articles (N?=?123) from 5 disciplines and interviewed their authors (N?=?84) to: (a) identify the social relations between citing and cited authors; and (b) measure the correlation between a set of features related to in-text citations (N?=?6,956) and the identified social relations. Our pioneering work, mixing sociological and linguistic results, shows that social relations between authors can partly explain the variations of citations in terms of frequency, position and textual context.

0.023228312 = product of:
  0.046456624 = sum of:
    0.046456624 = product of:
      0.09291325 = sum of:
        0.09291325 = weight(_text_:n in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09291325 = score(doc=1696,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.47637522 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.023228312 = product of:
  0.046456624 = sum of:
    0.046456624 = product of:
      0.09291325 = sum of:
        0.09291325 = weight(_text_:n in 5310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09291325 = score(doc=5310,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.47637522 = fieldWeight in 5310, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5310)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The novelty of knowledge claims in a research paper can be considered an evaluation criterion for papers to supplement citations. To provide a foundation for research evaluation from the perspective of innovativeness, we propose an automatic approach for extracting innovative ideas from the abstracts of technology and engineering papers. The approach extracts N-grams as candidates based on part-of-speech tagging and determines whether they are novel by checking the Scopus® database to determine whether they had ever been presented previously. Moreover, we discussed the distributions of innovative ideas in different abstract structures. To improve the performance by excluding noisy N-grams, a list of stopwords and a list of research description characteristics were developed. We selected abstracts of articles published from 2011 to 2017 with the topic of semantic analysis as the experimental texts. Excluding noisy N-grams, considering the distribution of innovative ideas in abstracts, and suitably combining N-grams can effectively improve the performance of automatic innovative idea extraction. Unlike co-word and co-citation analysis, innovative-idea extraction aims to identify the differences in a paper from all previously published papers.

0.022994855 = product of:
  0.04598971 = sum of:
    0.04598971 = product of:
      0.09197942 = sum of:
        0.09197942 = weight(_text_:n in 4505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09197942 = score(doc=4505,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.47158742 = fieldWeight in 4505, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der Artikel ist Teil einer größeren Untersuchung zu den Potentialen von Open Access Publishing zur Erhöhung der Publikations- und damit Karrierechancen von Sozialwissenschaftlerinnen. Es werden drei inhaltlich und methodisch ähnliche sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften verglichen: das Open-Access-Journal "Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung" ("FQS") und die zwei Closed-Access-/Hybridjournale "Zeitschrift für qualitative Forschung" und "Sozialer Sinn". Erhoben wird (a) der jeweilige Frauenanteil unter Redaktions- und Beiratsmitgliedern dieser drei Zeitschriften (N=184 insgesamt), (b) aufwändig rekonstruiert und analysiert wird die Genderstruktur der Autorenschaften aller in den drei Zeitschriften zwischen 2000 und 2008 veröffentlichten Beiträge (Totalerhebung, N=1557 insgesamt).

0.021668777 = product of:
  0.043337554 = sum of:
    0.043337554 = product of:
      0.08667511 = sum of:
        0.08667511 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08667511 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35